Virtual Library

Start Your Search

A. Adjei

Moderator of

  • +

    JTO - Meet the JTO Editor (ID 357)

    • Event: WCLC 2016
    • Type: Education Session
    • Track:
    • Presentations: 1
    • Now Available
    • +

      Meet the JTO Editor (Now Available) (ID 6749)

      A. Adjei

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Abstract not provided

      Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.

  • +

    YI01b - Scientific Mentoring (ID 415)

    • Event: WCLC 2016
    • Type: Young Investigator Session
    • Track:
    • Presentations: 5
    • Now Available
    • +

      YI01b.01 - Important Factors for a Professional Career (Now Available) (ID 6739)

      M. Edelman

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Abstract not provided

      Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.

    • +

      YI01b.02 - Expectations from a Young Investigator (Now Available) (ID 6740)

      S. Koleczko, M. Scheffler, D. Abdulla, R. Büttner, J. Wolf

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Abstract:
      Expectations from a Young Investigator Over the last two decades, research has pushed lung cancer investigations from the shallows of cancer treatment to one of the most innovative positions in oncology. The improvements in molecular diagnostics, in targeted therapy and immunotherapy with the linked creeping decline of traditional chemotherapy act as a model for many other tumor entities. Joined by this paradigm shift is a demographic change to young investigators who start their career in the innovative fields of lung cancer research instead of thinking in the traditional chemotherapy-based fashion. Nevertheless, in order to detect the needs and expectations from young investigators, even the definition of "young" is hard to handle, and subjective expectations might be biased by the socioeconomic background of the investigator. We therefore set out to find a way to present more robust and reliable data on the topic. We created an online questionnaire covering age, experiences, interests, and of course needs and expectations of young investigators. The expectations focus on research topics, treatment options, mentorships and social networking. The questionnaire will be forwarded to 20 investigators in the EU, Asia, South America and the US with link to the emerging fields of lung cancer research, in order to forward it to participants who they consider young in both clinical and preclinical investigations. For subgroup analyses, we will include students with interest in this field, too. Results will be analyzed by the presenters. The poll will be open until one week of the WCLCs Young Investigator's Scientific Mentoring Session, and results of this interim analysis will be presented by this talk. Nevertheless, all participants of the WCLC 2016 are invited to answer the questionnaire during the Conference, and a final data cut will be made at December 10th, 2016. We are aware of the potential biases in online polls. A valid e-mail address and the source of the online link (i. e., who was the "supervisor") are necessary. As an incentive to participate properly, we offer all participants to be part of the "WCLC young Investigator Expectations Network (WIEN)" which will coauthor the final manuscript. As we question the expectations of how lung cancer research will work in five years, it is intended to repeat the poll in a regular manner, maybe yearly. We expect a view on the expectations from young investigators worldwide and a feeling of their needs for the future.

      Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.

    • +

      YI01b.03 - Scientitific Mentoring: The Reality (Now Available) (ID 6741)

      M. Rajer

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Abstract:
      All oncologists are part of the mentor-mentee relationship at some point of their career. Mentoring can be considered one of the critical factors in achieving a successful career. The importance of a good mentor is best described by the sentence of Robert S.Kerbel: “I have been extremely fortunate if not blessed, with having series of outstanding mentors [1].” In spite of the importance of mentoring, what makes good mentors and mentoring is often not well defined [2]. According to Nature’s guide for mentors, one of the most important characteristics of a good mentor is his/her orientation towards mentee’s long-term career development as a main focus of mentoring. In this way, the mentor becomes a “mentor for life” and not only temporary supervisor [2]. According to mentees, a good mentor has some distinct personal characteristics like enthusiasm, passion, positivity, compassion and understanding. Beside these, some others like appreciating individual differences, being respectful and unselfish are also very important. To properly advise and guide mentees in their work, mentors should be able to see their individual characteristics and support their personal strengths. Showing respect means that the protégée is not only seen as an workforce, but also as a genuine collaborator. Regarding unselfishness: letting the mentee be the first author of a common article, even if the mentor provided the initial idea is a good example [2]. Personal characteristics aside, abilities to become a good mentor can be gained by following some useful rules. Mentors should be generally available and have an “open door” policy instead of restricted and limited dedicated time. Availability should also be shown by quickly answering e-mails and phones calls. They should be inspirational and show optimism on every-day issues but – even more importantly - when facing failure. Mentors should find a balance between doing and letting do, should support mentees in analytical thinking and adapt to their needs according to the progress of the protégée (e.g. different mentoring at the beginning and the end of the PhD course). They should celebrate successes with the mentee [2, 3]. Scientific mentors have the obligation to teach, encourage and support students in some specific activities in which skills are essential in the world of science. Examples are writing and oral presentations. Supporting writing with fast and accurate reviews, while resisting the temptation of rewriting instead of the student is one of the main goals. Extensive mentoring regarding oral presentations is also needed due to the fact, that not many students have a natural gift for presenting. Mentors should also try to provide as many opportunities for oral presentations as possible. Involving students in mentors’ networking should also be a continuous process [2]. How to choose a good mentor is a question that should be carefully addressed. In selecting mentors, trainees should follow some recommendations. They should look for possible mentors online, see which mentors possibly have the same interests, e-mail previous mentees inquiring about their experience with the mentor and afterwards meet the potential mentor in person at work. Trainees should carefully look for signs of poor mentorship, like no available time for one-to-one conversation, repressed and stressed co-workers that show no respect for their head, the potential mentor [2, 4]. Even if some trials report objective data, evaluating mentorships can be challenging since it is a complex interpersonal interaction. In a trial reported by Badawi the majority (74%) of mentors and mentees report the experience as rewarding, worth their time and effort, many (58%) achieve their goals in a timely manner and plan to continue (89%) their collaboration after the mentorship period is finished [5]. High satisfaction with the mentorship experience is commonly reported in other surveys. DeCastro conducted a trial on 1708 clinicians-researchers and only 10% of them were not satisfied with the experience, without differences between male and female mentees [6]. Some surveys, like the one reported by Dhami, show the importance of formal mentorship. Satisfaction with the mentorship experience was greater in mentees included in formal mentorship compared to those who had an informal one (72% vs. 36%, p<0.01) [7]. Formal mentoring influences also on research productivity. In the survey of Riechelman, responders with mentors were more involved (more available time dedicated) in academic research compared to those without mentors [8]. A model mentor is involved in the fruitful career development of the mentee and broadly shares the knowledge, skills and expertise that the mentee needs. As the mentee advances and gains independence, a good mentor is able to guide him/her toward new opportunities and facilitates the mentee’s growth [9]. 1. Kerbel, R.S., Some guidelines for building a successful career in cancer research. Cancer Biol Ther, 2003. 2(1): p. 111-4. 2. Lee, A., C. Dennis, and P. Campbell, Nature's guide for mentors. Nature, 2007. 447(7146): p. 791-7. 3. Powers, P.J., Engaged mentors offer inspiration and open doors. Am J Med, 2006. 119(1): p. 3. 4. Purcell, E.P., et al., Research to reality (R2R) mentorship program: building partnership, capacity, and evidence. Health Promot Pract, 2013. 14(3): p. 321-7. 5. Badawy, S.M., et al., Early career mentoring through the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology: Lessons learned from a pilot program. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2016. 6. DeCastro, R., et al., Mentoring and the career satisfaction of male and female academic medical faculty. Acad Med, 2014. 89(2): p. 301-11. 7. Dhami, G., et al., Mentorship Programs in Radiation Oncology Residency Training Programs: A Critical Unmet Need. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2016. 94(1): p. 27-30. 8. Riechelmann, R.P., et al., The influence of mentorship on research productivity in oncology. Am J Clin Oncol, 2007. 30(5): p. 549-55. 9. Gitlin, S.D. and M.L. Lypson, For Residents and Fellows: What to Look for in a Laboratory Research Mentor. J Cancer Educ, 2015.

      Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.

    • +

      YI01b.04 - Scientific Mentoring in Austria: My Personal Experience (Now Available) (ID 6742)

      A. Buder

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Abstract not provided

      Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.

    • +

      YI01b.05 - Meeting with Scientists (Now Available) (ID 6824)

      • Abstract
      • Presentation

      Abstract not provided

      Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.



Author of

  • +

    JTO - Meet the JTO Editor (ID 357)

    • Event: WCLC 2016
    • Type: Education Session
    • Track:
    • Presentations: 1
    • Now Available
    • +

      Meet the JTO Editor (Now Available) (ID 6749)

      A. Adjei

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Abstract not provided

      Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.

  • +

    OA04 - Epidemiology and Prevention of Lung Cancer (ID 370)

    • Event: WCLC 2016
    • Type: Oral Session
    • Track: Epidemiology/Tobacco Control and Cessation/Prevention
    • Presentations: 1
    • Now Available
    • +

      OA04.02 - Smoking Behavior in Patients with Early Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Report from ECOG-ACRIN 1505 Trial (Now Available) (ID 5385)

      A. Adjei

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Background:
      Approximately 85% of lung cancer is related to cigarette smoking. Smoking cessation has been reported to benefit patients even after the diagnosis of lung cancer. We studied the smoking behavior of patients with lung cancer in a phase 3 study for early stage lung cancer.

      Methods:
      The ECOG-ACRIN 1505 study enrolled patients with stages IB, II and IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after they had undergone surgical resection. It was designed to evaluate whether the addition of bevacizumab would improve survival relative to cisplatin-based chemotherapy alone. Studying the correlation between smoking status and outcome was a secondary endpoint. Patients completed a questionnaire about their smoking habits at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after study entry.

      Results:
      Out of 1501 patients enrolled, 99%, 90%, 85%, 82% and 80% responded to the questionnaire at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months respectively. Nearly 90% reported having smoking during their lifetime. At study entry, 12% reported ongoing smoking. The median age patients started smoking was 17 years and the median age at which they quit smoking was 55 years. The median number of cigarettes smoked per day was 20. Approximately 4% smoked cigars (median number 2/day). Of the 40% that reported smoking after the diagnosis of lung cancer, only 15% reported smoking at 12 months. At 12 months after study entry, among those who continued to smoke, 79% reported smoking fewer cigarettes/day, whereas 11% smoked more cigarettes. When asked about the number of cigarettes smoked at 12 mos, 63% reported smoking fewer than 10 cigarettes/day. The incidence of grades 3-5 toxicity was 76% in smokers versus 69% in non-smokers (p=0.06). There were no differences in dose reductions for chemotherapy (P=0.55) or bevacizumab (P=0.90) between smokers and non-smokers. The median number of chemotherapy cycles were nearly identical for smokers and never-smokers. The disease-free survival (DFS) and OS for smokers relative to never-smokers were 0.97 (P=0.83) and 1.54 (P=0.01) respectively.

      Conclusion:
      This is the first comprehensive, prospective report of smoking habits of patients with lung cancer. There were a high rate of smoking cessation and reduction in number of cigarettes smoked, that was maintained at 12m after study entry. Toxicity and DFS did not differ significantly between smokers and never-smokers, though overall survival was more favorable with the never-smokers. Study was coordinated by ECOG-ACRIN (Robert L. Comis, M.D., Chair) and supported in part by Public Health Service Grants CA180820, CA180888, CA180821, & CA180863.

      Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.

  • +

    P1.05 - Poster Session with Presenters Present (ID 457)

    • Event: WCLC 2016
    • Type: Poster Presenters Present
    • Track: Early Stage NSCLC
    • Presentations: 1
    • +

      P1.05-064 - Global Practice Patterns of Multifocal Lung Cancer (ID 4398)

      A. Adjei

      • Abstract

      Background:
      Multifocal lung cancer (MFLC) is a clinical scenario that is more frequently diagnosed with the increased utilization of computed tomography of the chest. The management of MFLC is limited by the difficulties in accurately staging a patient and understanding whether lesions represent separate primaries or metastatic disease. We sought to understand the global practice patterns of MFLC.

      Methods:
      A questionnaire was developed and sent to members of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer through REDCap electronic data capture tools to assess how a hypothetical patient with synchronous MFLC would be evaluated and treated. Responses were compared by specialty using the χ[2] test.

      Results:
      We received 221 responses from multiple specialists (74 Thoracic Surgeons, 68 Medical Oncologists, 32 Pulmonologists, 22 Radiation Oncologists and 25 others) primarily from Europe (n=76) and North America (n=62). Over 87 respondents reported 20 or more years of experience in the field. Most respondents recommended surgery (n=140, 63%), but many others did not (n=39, 18%) or were uncertain (42, 19%). Surgeons (n=60/74, 81%) were significantly more likely to recommend surgery than medical oncologists (n=37/68, 54%), pulmonologists (n=21/32, 66%) or radiation oncologists (n=10/22, 45%; p=0.01). Lobectomy of the primarily involved lobe (n=42, 30%) and various combinations of segmentectomies (n=48, 34%) were the most commonly recommended surgical approaches. Of those who recommended surgery, most would obtain a PET/CT to rule out distant metastasis (n=135, 97%) and an MRI to rule out brain metastases (n=76, 55%) but in the absence of radiographic lymph node involvement most would not stage the mediastinum by bronchoscopy or mediastinoscopy prior to resection (n=90, 65%). Many preferred obtaining multiple biopsies of separate lesions (n=139, 63%) and genetic testing of these lesions (n=146, 66%) to assess their histologic and genetic agreement. In the case that surgery was not offered or declined, more respondents recommended radiation (n=114, 52%) than those who did not (n=50, 23%) or were uncertain (56, 26%). Similarly, in the absence of surgery or radiotherapy, slightly more respondents recommended systemic chemotherapy (n=83, 38%) than those who did not (n=79, 36%) or those who were uncertain (n=59, 27%).

      Conclusion:
      Although most respondents favored surgery when feasible for MFLC, many were uncertain as to the optimal approach for this disease. Optimal management of MFLC requires greater evidence from studies which is currently lacking, and current strategies are strongly influenced by specialty bias.

  • +

    P1.07 - Poster Session with Presenters Present (ID 459)

    • Event: WCLC 2016
    • Type: Poster Presenters Present
    • Track: SCLC/Neuroendocrine Tumors
    • Presentations: 2
    • Now Available
    • +

      P1.07-001 - A Phase II Study of Etirinotecan Pegol (NKTR-102), a Topoisomerase-l lnhibitor Polymer Conjugate, in Small Cell Lung Cancer (Now Available) (ID 4349)

      A. Adjei

      • Abstract
      • Slides

      Background:
      Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has poor prognosis and systemic chemotherapy is the standard treatment. Irinotecan is a topoisomerase-I inhibitor that has been used in treating SCLC. Etirinotecan pegol (NKTR-102) is a polyethylene glycol conjugate of irinotecan. It is a next generation topoisomerase-I inhibitor uniquely designed for prolonged tumor cell exposure by using the polymer conjugate technology. This is a single arm phase II study to evaluate single agent etirinotecan pegol in patients with relapsed SCLC (NCT01876446).

      Methods:
      A total of 38 patients who have received only one prior systemic therapy for SCLC are being accrued over 3 years. There are 2 patient cohorts: those progressing on first-line chemotherapy <3 months after completion of treatment (Group A: chemotherapy-resistant, N=20) and those progressing on first-line chemotherapy ≥3 months after completion of treatment (Group B: chemotherapy-sensitive, N=18). Etirinotecan pegol was administered at 145 mg/m[2] IV once every 3 weeks. Cycles were repeated every 21 days until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from study. The primary endpoint is the 18-week progression free survival (PFS) rate. The secondary endpoints are objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. A single-stage design is used to assess the primary endpoint separately for each patient group.

      Results:
      Accrual of Group A is ongoing. Group B has completed targeted enrollment of 18 patients and the results are presented here. Median age was 61.6 (50-76.5) years, with 50% male. Prior chemotherapy included cisplatin/etoposide (41.2%) and carboplatin/etoposide (58.8%). Patients received a median of 6 (1-30) cycles of etirinotecan pegol, with dose reduction in 22.2%. PFS rate at week 18 was 72.2% (13/18, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 47-90%). ORR was 44.5% (8/18), including one complete response. Another one-third (6/18) of patients had stable disease. Median DOR was 4 (1.4-14.5) months. Median PFS was 21.9 (95% CI: 11.7, 29.3) weeks, and OS was 7.1 (95% CI: 4.8, 14.7) months. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade were diarrhea (66.7%), nausea (55.6%), fatigue (38.9%), and vomiting (27.8%). Neutropenia occurred in 2 cases, both grade 2, without neutropenic fever. The most common AEs ≥grade 3 were lymphopenia, hyponatremia and muscular weakness (2 cases each, all grade 3).

      Conclusion:
      Etirinotecan pegol has shown promising activity with acceptable toxicity profile in treatment of chemotherapy-sensitive patients with relapsed SCLC. Accrual of chemotherapy-resistant patients is expected to be completed soon.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.

    • +

      P1.07-036 - Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Lung: The Mayo Clinic Experience (Now Available) (ID 4925)

      A. Adjei

      • Abstract
      • Slides

      Background:
      Pulmonary large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a relatively uncommon, high-grade neuroendocrine tumor sharing several features with small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC). LCNEC is considered aggressive, and the optimal treatment strategy and chemotherapy regimen remain undefined.

      Methods:
      We retrospectively evaluated a LCNEC patient cohort established from 1997 to 2015 at Mayo Clinic (Minnesota). A diagnosis of LCNEC was made when all WHO classification criteria were present in the tumor section examined. Clinical characteristics, treatment and outcomes were analyzed. Available radiology assessment was evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria.

      Results:
      The study included 55 LCNEC patients. Median age at diagnosis was 63 years (range: 38-88); two thirds were men; and majority were smokers (94%). Clinical staging was I, II, III or IV in 52.8%, 9.1%, 14.5%, and 23.6% of cases, respectively. Forty-six percent of stage IV patients presented with brain metastases at time of diagnosis (n=6/13) and 18% (n=7/38) developed brain recurrence in the follow up period. Thirty-nine (71%) patients had surgery and 9 (16%) patients received adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. Sixty-five percent of patients with complete resection experienced disease recurrence with 80% recurring within 2 years of resection. Treatment data for first-line palliative chemotherapy were available on 23 patients: 10 received platinum/etoposide and 13 received other regimens. In 19 patients with available imaging; the overall response rate was 52.6% (95% CI, 31.7-72.7) and there was no difference in ORR between platinum/etoposide (ORR=55.6%) or platinum plus other agents (paclitaxel or pemetrexed; ORR=55.6%). The median survival time was 26.3 months (95%CI; 18.6-33.9); the 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates (OS) were 75%, 53%, 36%, and 30%, respectively. Patients who received platinum/etoposide demonstrated longer median time to progression (TTP), and median OS than those who received ‘other’ regimens (14.7 months vs. 7.1 months; p value 0.07, and 28.2 months vs. 21.1 months; p value 0.22, respectively); the differences did not reach conventional statistical significance, likely due to the small sample size. Rigorous pathologic confirmation and genomic analysis are ongoing.

      Conclusion:
      LCNEC is associated with a poor prognosis and high recurrence rates after surgery. Advanced LCNEC patients are at high risk for brain metastases, therefore, routine brain imaging surveillance during follow-up may be beneficial. The chemotherapeutic responsiveness of LCNEC patients was intermediate between that of NSCLC and SCLC patients. Future prospective, multicenter, clinical trials are needed to determine the best chemotherapy regimen for these rare tumors.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.

  • +

    P2.03a - Poster Session with Presenters Present (ID 464)

    • Event: WCLC 2016
    • Type: Poster Presenters Present
    • Track: Advanced NSCLC
    • Presentations: 1
    • +

      P2.03a-055 - Predicting Risk of Chemotherapy-Induced Severe Neutropenia in Lung Patients: A Pooled Analysis of US Cooperative Group Trials (ID 3975)

      A. Adjei

      • Abstract

      Background:
      Neutropenia is the most serious hematologic toxicity associated with the use of chemotherapy. Severe neutropenia (SN) may result in dose delays and/or reductions, and the use of growth colony stimulating factors (CSFs) increases the cost of therapy. Lyman et al. (2011) published a risk model to predict individual risk of neutropenia in patients receiving chemotherapy for multiple types of cancer. The Lyman model (LM) has not been validated by external datasets. We investigated the LM with a large external lung cancer dataset based on clinical criteria of SN and investigated new risk prediction models for SN.

      Methods:
      Stage IIIA/IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and extensive small cell lung cancer (SCLC) chemotherapy phase II/III trials completed in 1990-2012 were assembled from U.S. cancer cooperative groups. SN was defined as any neutropenic complications grade ≥ 3 according to CTCAE. A risk score was calculated as a weighted sum of regression coefficients of the LM for all patients in the database. The performance of risk models was evaluated by the area under the ROC curve (AUC) with a good model defined as AUC ≥ 0.7. To develop new risk models, a random split was used to divide the database into training cohort (2/3) and testing cohort (1/3). Multivariable logistic regression models with stepwise selection and lasso selection (Tibshirani, 1996) were built in training cohort and validated in testing cohort. Candidate predictors included patient-level and treatment-level variables. The patients with complete data were used for validation and all patients, including those with imputed predictors, were used to develop new risk models.

      Results:
      Eighty seven trials with 14,829 patients were included. The LM had a good performance in SCLC patients (AUC=0.86), but it had poor performance in NSCLC patients (AUC=0.47), and an overall unsatisfactory performance in all patients (AUC=0.56). The stepwise model had superior performance than the lasso model (AUC: 0.84 vs. 0.76) in training, while the lasso model had smaller shrinkage in testing. A parsimonious model, based on histology, prior chemo, platinum-based, taxanes, gemcitabine, CSFs, age as continuous variable, relative dose intensity, and white blood cell (WBC), performed slightly worse (AUC=0.71) in testing than the stepwise model and the lasso model.

      Conclusion:
      The U.S. cooperative group data failed to validate the LM in predicting the risk for severe neutropenia in lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. The parsimonious model involving nine predictors showed good performance in predicting severe neutropenia. Prospective validation is warranted.

  • +

    SC28 - Novel Clinical Trial Designs (ID 352)

    • Event: WCLC 2016
    • Type: Science Session
    • Track: Trial Design/Statistics
    • Presentations: 1
    • Now Available
    • +

      SC28.01 - Phase I Trials of Targeted Therapies (Now Available) (ID 6717)

      A. Adjei

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Abstract not provided

      Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.

  • +

    YI01a - Clinical Trials & Scientific Mentoring (ID 414)

    • Event: WCLC 2016
    • Type: Young Investigator Session
    • Track: WCLC 2016
    • Presentations: 1
    • Now Available
    • +

      YI01a.03 - How to Effectively Publish your Results: Suggestions from the JTO Editor (Now Available) (ID 6737)

      A. Adjei

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Abstract not provided

      Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.